W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2006

[DRAFT] EOWG comments on WCAG 2.0 documents

From: Andrew Arch <andrew.arch@nils.org.au>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 22:46:14 +1000
To: "EOWG \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000901c6781d$8e0ab950$d6e38b90@yourdh7axfhyur>

Dear EOWG Participants:

The following are DRAFT comments and discussion raised during the EO
teleconference of 12 May 2006 in regard of various WCAG 2.0 documents.
Feedback is sought from EO members before they are finalised for submission
to WCAG working group.

The notes below are preceded by various terms:
   Comment - general consensus during meeting (ready to send if you agree)
   Possible comment - needs some discussion to finalise
   Formatting - a layout or formatting issue that needs immediate attention
(ready to send)

Please review these draft comments by 17th May, and reply back to the EOWG
list if you do *not* agree with any of the following, or if you have
suggestions on how to clarify the points further.

Thank you,
Andrew & Judy

[Remember, the following is a DRAFT for EOWG review first!]

1. Conformance to WCAG 2.0
* http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/conformance.html

1.1 Comment: In the discussion of baseline and conformance EO has concerns
about the potential for misuse [e.g. authors can just declare their own
level of technology such as requires CSS2 and JavaScript 1.2. The
actual/potential audience, not just perceived/target audience or what
developers wish they could reply on, should define baseline.

1.2 Comment: To achieve this EO suggests several strategies A) to give
guidance on what is a realistic baseline for most Internet sites today, W3C
should publish a ‘reasonable/realistic’ baseline recommended for a general
audience; B) update this ‘recommended’ baseline annually; C) place the
'recommended' baseline outside of the WCAG 2.0 normative document; D)
provide an explanation about why the particular baseline is recommended

2. Understanding WCAG 2.0
* http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/

2.1 Comment: Introduction needs an opening statement along the lines of
“this is not an introductory document - it is a detailed description of the
guidelines and their success criteria” and adds a pointer to the “Overview”
document for people requiring a simple introduction.

2.2 Note: Send EO complement to WCAG working group on the detail in

2.3 Possible comment: Can we add an explanatory subheading. Suggestions are:
   a. Your guide to meeting the requirements of WCAG 2.0
   b. A guide to How to Meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0
   c. A definitive guide to meeting WCAG 2.0
   d. The authoritative, encyclopaedic and indispensable guide to WCAG2.0
   e. A guide to learning and implementing WCAG 2.0
   f. A guide to understanding and using WCAG 2.0

2.4 Comment: For each guideline & success criteria, provide a couple of word
summary, rather than just a number. Sometimes referred to as "shortname".

3. Checklist for WCAG 2.0 / Appendix B: Checklist (Non-Normative)
* http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixB.html

3.1 Formatting: the caption for each table (guideline number and title) does
not display in Opera 8

3.2 Comment: Remove the ‘mouse-over’ highlighting colour - adds confusion

3.3 Comment: Change ‘L1’ to ‘Level 1’ etc, and add a heading of ‘Level’ to
the first column

3.4 Possible comment: In the ‘blurb’ explaining what the Appendix is for -
explain that it is intended that you can save he document and add comments
to the fourth column as a report. Alternatively, provide a simpler table and
also a downloadable (RTF) document for evaluation reporting and annotation

4. Glossary to WCAG 2.0 / Appendix A: Glossary (Normative)
* http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixA.html

4.1 Formatting: some Notes roll visually into the following definition's
title - needs some formatting tidy up (e.g. Event Handler notes run into
Extended Audio Descriptions title)

4.2 Possible comment: Some Notes could be added back into the definitions
for added clarity in some instances

4.3 Possible comment: Consider an index approach - link back to the use(s)
of the term in the Technical Recommendation

Dr Andrew Arch
Vision Australia - Accessible Information Solutions
454 Glenferrie Rd, Kooyong 3144, Australia
Ph +61 (0)3 9864 9282; Fax +61 (0)3 9864 9370

<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside Later
for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE!  http://www.ellaforspam.com
Received on Monday, 15 May 2006 12:46:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:54 UTC